> Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research that asked more blind people than you have? Since they propose to replace Hispanic with L

> Why not take it on good faith that this work was guided by research that asked more blind people than you have? Since they propose to replace Hispanic with Latinx, a term that most Hispanics reject [1], such faith is unwarranted. > You can either care about how blind people feel through your usage of language or not care. I propose an alternative dichotomy: I can prioritize truth, or I can prioritize the asserted feelings of the loudest complainers. And as a commenter pointed out, "blind" in "blind review" is a positive, not a negative! A blind review is objectively better and more socially desirable than a non-blind one (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but is becoming prevalent in academia, so it is also normal instead of abnormal). We have more than enough evidence to conclude this document is insincere. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...